ArticleMagma (New York, N.Y.)2020
Low-level fat fraction quantification at 3 T: comparative study of different tools for water-fat reconstruction and MR spectroscopy.
Article in Magma (New York, N.Y.), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Validation of magnetic resonance imaging for quantification of intrapancreatic fat deposition using phantom and histologic comparators: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European radiology · 2026Pooled it
- Diagnostic Performance of Transabdominal Ultrasonography for Pancreatic Fat in Adults with Metabolic Risk Factors for NAFPD: Comparison with a Study-Defined Two-Echo MRI Index.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Quantitative MRI Findings and Their Relationship to Muscle Histopathology and Ambulatory Clinical Function in Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy.Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle · 2026Article
- Quantitative assessment of renal and perirenal adipose tissue distribution at 5 T: a feasibility study.BMC medical imaging · 2025Article
- Comparison of Vendor-Independent Software Tools for Liver Proton Density Fat Fraction Estimation at 1.5 T.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Feasibility of Hepatic Fat Quantification Using Proton Density Fat Fraction by Multi-Echo Chemical-Shift-Encoded MRI at 7T.Frontiers in physics · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesChemical Shift Encoded Magnetic Resonance Imaging (CSE-MRI)-based quantification of low-level (< 5% of proton density fat fraction-PDFF) fat infiltration requires highly accurate data reconstruction for the assessment of hepatic or pancreatic fat accumulation in diagnostics and biomedical research. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe compare three software tools available for water/fat image reconstruction and PDFF quantification with MRS as the reference method. Based on the algorithm exploited in the tested software, the accuracy of fat fraction quantification varies. We evaluate them in phantom and in vivo MRS and MRI measurements.
resultsThe signal model of Intralipid 20% emulsion used for phantoms was established for 3 T and 9.4 T fields. In all cases, we noticed a high coefficient of determination (R-squared) between MRS and MRI-PDFF measurements: in phantoms <0.9924-0.9990>; and in vivo <0.8069-0.9552>. Bland-Altman analysis was applied to phantom and in vivo measurements. DISCUSSION: Multi-echo MRI in combination with an advanced algorithm including multi-peak spectrum modeling appears as a valuable and accurate method for low-level PDFF quantification over large FOV in high resolution, and is much faster than MRS methods. The graph-cut algorithm (GC) showed the fewest water/fat swaps in the PDFF maps, and hence stands out as the most robust method of those tested.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.